This early sound, but
none the less mature, film by Julien Duvivier is highly rated by critics and is
also a prize winner. While regarded by some as the first successful example of
"poetic realism ", unfortunately I cannot support that judgement, at
least of critical success. I think the passage of time and modern viewers'
greater insensitivity to natural life, renders a more positive judgement very
difficult. The film is based on a novel of the same name published in 1914, about
a year after the author’s death, by a Frenchman living in Canada, Louis Hemon,.
It received rapturous reviews on publication and has been published continuously
ever since, remaining an important source of identity in Québec. The story
concerns the pursuit in marriage of pure and innocent Maria by three men,
equally worthy in their own way: the timber man, François; the
"modern" man Lorenzo who has escaped from provincial life to the city
and the farmer Alexandre who aspires to nothing more than to remain where he
has always been.

The overwhelming bulk of production took place in the upper reaches of Québec
near the township of Peribonka. Of course I recognise that this must have been substantially
difficult but that decision imposed a very real cost on the completed film. The
setting is the early years of the 20th century, whereas the clothing and
manners of the actors and the matte shots of the big city Lorenzo describes to Maria,
are clearly of the 1930s. There is nothing overtly egregious like a modern day
motorcar, but the ensemble effect is much diminished and in fact when I saw
shots of horses and buggies, I thought these choices were very overt and unsubtle,
just inserts to make clear that it was an early period, earlier than the actual
time of production.

Secondly, as in most
films of more or less restricted budget, with considerable use of on-site
locations, there is a tendency to over use the shots of the real background.
Duvivier has a great compositional eye, but most of these shots run on rather
too long. Others however may be more patient than I. Moreover most of these
scenes are captured in longshot with a diminished sense of engagement partly because
they are invariably shown with clearly post-dubbed music or singing voices.
This happened so consistently that it drew attention to the fact that there
were clearly technical limitations at work – limitations I quite understand.
Sound equipment was both cumbersome and crude at the time and taking genuine
sound shots would have been very difficult.

It is a matter of common historical knowledge that the Québec
provincial/farming society was exceptionally insular and closed. While the
Catholic Church and in particular its clergy were authoritarian generally in
the pre-Vatican II period, this seems to have been particularly noteworthy in
Québec. Indeed many social commentators from the 1960s onwards have indicated
that a substantial reason for Québec being able to integrate itself better into
Canadian and modern life came from a willingness to become more independent
from the clergy. In the film this degree of authoritarian control is indicated
by the parish priest of Peribonka treating Maria quite harshly in her deep
regret over the death by exposure of François. He left the timber camp during
the Christmas period when Canada is desperately cold, and perishes. Maria had
thought that, in accordance with custom, if she had said 1000 Hail Mary's, her
wish, in this case that François return to her, would be fulfilled.

Secondly at the funeral
for her mother, whose death is at least partly caused by lack of availability
of proper medical care, the priest makes positive note in the eulogy of the
separateness of the French of the province and their retreat away from the
"invaders" (the dreaded English), keeping themselves to themselves
for the prior 300 years. This seems to be a material cause for the decision to
remain where she is and to marry Eutrope despite the temptation to leave with
Lorenzo.

I am profoundly uncomfortable with French "poetic realism". I can
revel in the beauty of captured pastoral scenery but the idealisation of the
harsh and brutal poverty and provincialism that this pastoral world underlies,
seems to me to become more depressing year by year as I grow older. At the
level of pure cinema, the characterisation of all the main actors, and
especially Maria, seems to me to be grossly unrealistic. The grinding poverty
and the intense cold would seem to me a sure invitation to leave while the
going is good. It is equally unappealing to me that directors – there is a
whole host of French directors who were engaged in displays of poetic realism –
wouldn't think of living such a life for themselves but were quite prepared to
project it onto screens as something inherently desirable. I find this a
perfect example of what Sartre called in the immediate post-Second World War
period "bad faith" (mauvais fois).

The film moves painfully slowly and is completely comprehensible if watched at
two or three times normal viewing speed. I know because I watched part of it a
second time just to check. At the same time even though it's only 74 minutes
long, it seems too long!

I conclude with one perhaps fanciful thought. Perhaps it's best to view this
film as part of the intellectual path along which Duvivier lost his religious
faith and pretty much all his optimism. Perhaps his depiction of the sterility
and acceptance of an otherwise unacceptable life, and the uncomprehending and
unsympathetic role of Catholic clergy, was part of his own development as a
person. If that be the case, then the film is worth watching on that count
alone.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

About Me

This is a blog devoted to things of interest to cinephiles. The subjects are randomly selected in the manner of a diary and are somewhat oriented to Sydney, Australia. In the past I used to send out these entries via regular emails but this has trailed off and its best to check here for anything new.You can contact me direct via email at filmalert101@gmail.com